|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
18 Oct 2011, 08:44 (Ref:2973156) | #151 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 425
|
The age of the cars has been a factor in Indycars - cars are long past their sell buy date, many have been involved in heavy accidents over the years and repaired etc. etc. Thankfully they are getting a new much safer car for 2012.
On the Wheldon incident - one of the threads on the Indycar section of this site says the following (posted on 7th Sept this year): Quote:
|
|||
|
18 Oct 2011, 09:37 (Ref:2973187) | #152 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 611
|
I would be interested to see what solution is proposed but part of the enjoyment for me is the open cockpit, open wheeled racing F1 produces. If they can find a way of producing an F1 car with an enclosed cockpit, but still keep the fundamental design of the car similar, I think its worth having.
What I don't want to see is coupe cars where drivers bump into each other in little bubbles and we lose the open wheel form that we have had almost since the sport began. |
|
|
18 Oct 2011, 15:29 (Ref:2973315) | #153 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 89
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
18 Oct 2011, 17:27 (Ref:2973385) | #154 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Looking at a modern F1 car, you can hardly see the drivers helmet anyway - they are almost enclosed already.
|
||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
18 Oct 2011, 18:30 (Ref:2973431) | #155 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 611
|
True, but adding a canopy would possibly involve redesigning the entire car to suit. The canopy would need to be up to an inch thick if we judge this by the F-16 design and that would bring considerable weight. Not to mention the centre of gravity for the car would change, along with the airbox needing to be relocated etc. It would bring about alot of problems aswell as solving a few IMO.
|
|
|
18 Oct 2011, 18:42 (Ref:2973438) | #156 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but with a closed cockpit, would we also then see A/C in F1 for the first time?
Richard |
|
|
18 Oct 2011, 18:59 (Ref:2973447) | #157 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Surely they would use aircraft type 'quick clear' glazing?
But they might still need a windscreen wiper...... Isn't all of this just going to make it more difficult for the driver to know what's going on around him/her? |
|
|
18 Oct 2011, 22:15 (Ref:2973545) | #158 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 751
|
How the hell did you work that out? Use the right materials and construction and it shouldn't be necessary to be more than 5-6mm tops. Car windscreens are only around 3-4mm thick, and have a much larger frontal area than would be necessary on an F1 car...and F1 screens would be stronger in frontal impacts due to the wraparound shape...
All that aside, I'm against canopies for F1 cars... |
||
__________________
Give me the wisdom to know what is right, the courage to change what is wrong, and the bank balance to support me when I can't tell the difference |
19 Oct 2011, 01:01 (Ref:2973615) | #159 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,748
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
19 Oct 2011, 01:04 (Ref:2973616) | #160 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Quote:
I also don't think the thickness of car windshields factor into this at all. They are to prevent wind and weather from getting into a vehicle and are not safety devices. It takes relatively little effort to penetrate one. Anyhow thickness is pure speculation unless someone here has experience in designing this type of thing. And I suspect that most of the experience in this area probably would be military or industrial in nature. Richard Last edited by Richard C; 19 Oct 2011 at 01:09. |
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 07:13 (Ref:2973692) | #161 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
Last edited by henners88; 19 Oct 2011 at 07:18. |
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 08:09 (Ref:2973721) | #162 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
The F15 is meant to resist penetration of objcts at up to Mach 2! |
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 11:15 (Ref:2973772) | #163 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
Even basic car windscreen are safety devices (amongst other things), otherwise they wouldn't be expensive laminated objects. Why else do you need to carry around a hardended pointed hammer to break them if you fall in to a river (Well, I do - lots of long roads next to rivers where I live) And yes, an F16 screen can withstand impacts at mach 2 - so not really comparable to f1's rather palty 200mph. And to be honest, they don't need to withstand penetration as such, just need to deflect enough energy go give better protection that a visor alone. |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
19 Oct 2011, 11:21 (Ref:2973777) | #164 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
|
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 13:59 (Ref:2973859) | #165 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Quote:
Regarding laminated “Safety” and tempered glass that is used in modern automobiles, the special features of these types of glass is not to protect you from other things. It is used to “protect you from the glass itself when it breaks”. Laminated windshields are to prevent damage to you from injury from either you impacting the windshield or having large sections of windshield glass impacting you. The lamination holds the large pieces together. Tempered side windows are not laminated, but due to internal stress are designed to break into very small pieces to again prevent injury to you from flying glass. Regarding the thickness of a fighter jet canopy, clearly the FIA thought that there was some merit to using one as part of their recent tests. It may well have been that this was the easiest to obtain example of a small protective cockpit covering that used a clear material. I have no idea what the requirements are for a jet fighter canopy. I suspect that the primary concern is bird strikes. So I did the math for kinetic energy of a worst case scenario for an F1 car and then compared that to a bird strike on an airplane canopy. What speed would a goose have to be traveling to equal the kinetic energy of an F1 car at speed impacting a solid object such as a barrier? Maybe I am doing my math wrong. Someone point my errors out. Using Energy = (1/2) * Mass * Velocity squared F1 weight = 640 kg F1 speed = 180 MPH = 80.5 m/s .5 * 640 * 80.5^2 = 2,073,690 J Reverse the equation to determine velocity needed for the Goose to get equivalent energy Velocity = Square root of ( 2 * Energy / Mass) Goose weight = 35 lbs = 15.9 kg Energy = 2,073,690 J That results in a velocity for the Goose of 510.7 m/s or 1140 mph or about 1.48 Mach at sea level. Even that speed surprised me. So, yes that is an extreme example with respect to the F1 car impact. The deceleration forces would probably kill the driver regardless of protection from cockpit intrusion. I also suspect that the one inch thick jet canopies are in fact not designed to handle such a large bird at those speeds. But my point is that everyone should not be so quick to say “Oh, it will never be that thick”. The forces they might need to protect against on an F1 car may be larger than you think and the resulting canopy surprisingly thicker than most people’s “gut” estimates. Clearly it all depends upon what they (FIA) might try to protect against. The scenario above may be overly extreme and overly simplified (or not). But protection against suspension assemblies, wheels and smaller debris might be something that can be reasonably protected against. And this is all a minor hypothetical point and I apologize for being pedantic and overly verbose. For those that don’t agree with me, we will just have to agree to disagree. Richard |
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 14:04 (Ref:2973862) | #166 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Quote:
Richard Edit... Argh!! I hate it when I post and it rolls over to another page. Nobody will see my other reply at the tail end of the previous page! |
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 14:15 (Ref:2973866) | #167 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Going back to the OPs video evidence, we can perhaps see where the FIA are heading with this. Vid at bottom of article.
http://thef1times.com/news/display/03960 |
|
|
19 Oct 2011, 17:37 (Ref:2973937) | #168 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 751
|
Quote:
I said made in the right materials and construction it would need to be no thicker than 5-6mm...given that conventional vehicle screens are only around 3-4mm |
|||
__________________
Give me the wisdom to know what is right, the courage to change what is wrong, and the bank balance to support me when I can't tell the difference |
19 Oct 2011, 20:11 (Ref:2973991) | #169 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 20:49 (Ref:2974001) | #170 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 751
|
My comments are based on my knowledge of some of the products used for aerospace applications - Lexan is generally used for fighter canopies, space helmets, visors etc, and would probably be the best fit for this application.
|
||
__________________
Give me the wisdom to know what is right, the courage to change what is wrong, and the bank balance to support me when I can't tell the difference |
19 Oct 2011, 21:10 (Ref:2974010) | #171 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Quote:
If you are thinking aerospace, then we are in agreement. Richard |
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 21:14 (Ref:2974012) | #172 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 23:24 (Ref:2974067) | #173 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
Of course if the roll hop structure shears off like it did for Dan then a canopy without a base or oneside exposed isn't going to help in the sme or similar situation
|
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
20 Oct 2011, 02:49 (Ref:2974091) | #174 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
When a car comes down from a height at speed; which Weldon's did; the hoop is liable to dig in and brush off, as happened to Weldon. A canopy would allow a better design of structure beneath it, and would possibly prevent this dig in effect even if it was destroyed in the process. Still some accidents will just be too extreme to survive, this may have been one of those, but the concept needs looking at. |
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 02:59 (Ref:2974092) | #175 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,748
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Closed cockpits | gttouring | Sportscar & GT Racing | 5 | 27 Mar 2003 22:59 |
FIA to introduce a 'spy' into F1 cockpits | Super Tourer | Formula One | 25 | 12 Feb 2003 14:29 |
A step closer to reality... | Gt_R | Formula One | 4 | 20 Dec 2000 07:47 |
Open v. Closed Cockpits...Why? | Heeltoe6 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 4 | 8 Jun 2000 07:04 |